NEW PRAGUE AREA SCHOOLS LONG RANGE FACILITIESPLAN2009

MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE MEMBERS Ben Bartusek Sherry Brooks Steve Bruchman Ken Bruzelius Tom Doig Mary Drazan Julie Dvorak Mike Eischens Marvin Erickson Jim Friedges Charlie Hatch Christa Ingebrand Nancy Johnson Chuck Kajer Julie Martin Stephanie Nelson Ken Ondich Tammy Pexa Pat Pribyl Chris Remer Mark Rezac Doug Schoenecker Matt Sticha Steve Trewartha Amy Trygestad Lois Tuma Diane Weyrich Virginia Lucier Hoyt School Board Representatives Marty Beckius, School Board Dan Carlson, School Board Don Dvorak, School Board Denny Havlicek, School Board Larry Pint, School Board Bob Reed, School Board Jerry Walerius, School Board Resources Craig Menozzi, Superintendent Colleen Cardenuto, Director of Curriculum & Testing Amy Eich, Community Education Director Dan Pyan, Director of Finance Tim Rybak, Director of Operations Margaret Sticha, Board Secretary Facilitators Vaughn Dierks, Wold Architects and Engineers Linn Bjornrud, Wold Architects and Engineers

LONG RANGE PLAN: OVERVIEW The Strategic Planning Committee’s charge was to develop a consensus position regarding a preferred direction for resolving the District’s long- term grade organization and facility space needs, and to develop a recommendation to advise the Board of Education on the scope, content, and timeline to address future facilities needs INFORMATION CONSIDERED: Projected enrollment and population growth, and associated regional factors The capacities and capabilities of existing facilities The current grade structure for the District The options for grade reorganization within the existing facilities The space needs in each building, as well as District-wide space needs

LONG RANGE PLAN: CONSENSUS GENERAL GUIDING PRINCIPLES Providing students with a quality educational experience is a primary priority. Maintaining this quality experience requires an ongoing effort and continuous planning for our facilities. We strongly agree that doing nothing is not an option. We feel the District has continuously made safety a priority, and support that effort. We would encourage the Board of Education to continue investing in security and safety projects that benefit our schools, as they deem appropriate. We agree that the High School, Raven Stream E.S., and Eagle View E.S. are excellent facilities and represent the quality standard by which other District facilities will be measured.

LONG RANGE PLAN: CONSENSUS ENROLLMENT & CAPACITY We support the findings in the School Finances.Com enrollment projections document. We agree on the current capacity of our school buildings based on classroom counts and current student/classroom ratios. To be fiscally efficient, we must strive to have “full” buildings throughout the phases of executing a plan. We feel it is important to continue to use all of the buildings owned by the District to support education and the community.

CAPACITY ANALYSIS

LONG RANGE PLAN: CONSENSUS GRADE STRUCTURE We agree on the following grade structure as a District standard: [K-5 / 6-8 / 9-12]. The group, however, feels that temporary adjustments to grade structure need to remain an option to provide flexibility during growth transition periods. We feel that these temporary adjustments should comply with the following: We agree with past planning groups, who recommended that the 6th grade not be included in an elementary model, (i.e. K-6)‏ The 8th grade should not be included in a high school setting, (i.e. 8-12)‏ The 5th grade should be flexible, with the possibility of inclusion in an elementary setting, (i.e. current configuration of K-5), or a middle school setting, (i.e. 5-8)‏ The 9th grade could also be flexible, with the possibility of inclusion in a high school setting, (i.e. current configuration of 9-12), or the creation of a 9th grade center.

LONG RANGE PLAN: CONSENSUS CEC BUILDING We agree that the CEC Building is a vital part of the District Facilities inventory. Not only does / is it providing additional classroom space necessary to accommodate short term growth demands (currently 6 th grade) but it also is needed to house other District programs, including: Alternative Learning Center Growing Special Education Needs District Offices District Operations Community Education ANY GROWTH MODEL NEEDS TO MAINTAIN THE CEC BUILDING IN THE INVENTORY

LONG RANGE PLAN: CONSENSUS GROWTH MODEL CRITERIA A plan must accommodate projected growth, with the ability to adjust if growth does not occur at the expected rate. We feel that any future building projects, (new, or additions), must be justified by REALIZED ENROLLMENT GROWTH to avoid overbuilding. An acceptable “trigger point” for action is 95% of building capacity. As the District continues to grow, we need to address growth in the areas that growth is taking place. Bus rides for students should continue to be limited to a maximum of 65 minutes. If middle school students continue to be housed in the CEC building, safe pedestrian travel needs to be provided between the CEC building and the current middle school.

GROWTH MODEL: OVERVIEW = Station Addition BUILDING GRADE LEVELS PROJECTED STUDENT ENROLLMENT BUILDING NAME BUILDING CAPACITY MODIFIED BUILDING CAPACITY BUILDING ADDITION HS

GROWTH MODEL: CURRENT FACILITIES * TIMELINES BASED ON PROJECTIONS

GROWTH MODEL: CURRENT FACILITIES * TIMELINES BASED ON PROJECTIONS

 Middle School Capacity  CEC Use Creates Travel Issues  8 th Grade NOT OK at High School  Elementary and High School Capacity NOT an Issue Currently  Separate Topics: Deferred Maintenance, Fields, Bus Garage, Storage, Athletics, Land Acquisition, Pool DEFINING THE PROBLEM:

GROWTH MODEL: RECOMMENDATION

TIMELINE OVERVIEW Facilities Planning Committee K-8 Grade Reconfiguration Fall Referendum & Design Work Design Work Construction Work Open New Middle School (Fall of School Year) [K- 5, 6-8, 9-12] Planning Group Reconvene Assess Student Enrollment Compared to Projections TBD

 Alleviate Pressure at 9-12  Alleviate Pressure at K-5  9 th Grade Center?  4 th Elementary  New Building w/Grade Restructure DON’T NEED TO DECIDE NOW! [2015 PLANNING GROUP] FUTURE ISSUES / DECISIONS:

 Deferred Maintenance  Fields / Athletics  Pool  Bus Garage  Storage  Land Acquisition ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION:

LONG RANGE PLAN: CONSENSUS DEFERRED MAINTENANCE As a community, we believe that our buildings need to operate efficiently and provide healthy environments for users. Currently the most critical infrastructure needs exist at the older facilities in the District. Critical deferred maintenance items should be addressed at the current middle school, Falcon Ridge E.S., and the CEC building. We strongly believe that a healthy learning environment should provide adequate ventilation for students and staff. The District should strive to have all buildings meet the minimum ventilation requirements as specified in ASHRAE 62, Addendum N. Buildings or areas that are found to be substantially deficient should be addressed immediately. We believe that the District has put great effort into increasing the energy performance of facilities. We support this effort, and encourage continued investments.

Recommendation:  Continue to Implement Annual Plan  Implement Operational Efficiency Projects (5-10 year payback) ‏  Focus on Significant Deterioration Projects  Address Any Severe Air-Quality Issues  Schedule High Cost Life-Cycle Projects Deferred Maintenance:

Fields / Athletics: CONSENSUS We believe that the current middle school site is inadequately sized. It does not meet the state guideline recommendations for site size, and athletic fields are not on District property. This site should be expanded. Land acquisition should be considered to accommodate growing program needs. The amount of fields/outdoor play areas needs to be increased to accommodate educational, athletic, and community demand. The District should take advantage of current potential for a “favorable market”. Currently, students and athletes are required to travel out of the District to access a swimming pool. We feel that a pool is wanted within the District for educational, community, and athletic use. We believe that District facilities need to be available for community use. The District should consider partnerships to provide enhanced educational and community facilities and services.

 How Many Additional?  (2) HS + (2) MS Soccer  (5) Baseball  (2) Softball  Where?  New Prague MS  Additional Acres within District  New Market Land  Rebuilding Track / Synthetic Turf Fields / Athletics: ITEMS DISCUSSED

 Necessary to Rebuild Track  Significant Deterioration  Past Life Cycle  Need to reconfigure for all sports  Synthetic Turf Advantages  Increase available usage (from 9 to 40+) ‏  Ability to utilize for curriculum  Ability to host regional events  Address other stadium issues simultaneously Rebuild Track / Synthetic Turf

 Community Partnership?  Part of a Middle School?  Addition onto CEC Building?  Need? Want? Pool: ITEMS DISCUSSED

 Rebuilding the track and providing synthetic turf at the stadium is the top priority  The District should purchase land as it becomes available  Plan for fields project as soon as possible to accommodate activity demand  The District should pursue community partnerships as part of a larger vision to accomplish the goal of a pool within the District. Fields / Athletics: Fields / Athletics: Recommendation

Additional: CONSENSUS The District has storage needs that cannot be accommodated with the facilities available today. Rental space is currently being utilized to relieve this need. We feel that adequate storage should be provided in an efficient and reasonable manner. Storage should be evaluated yearly to avoid “over saving” of materials that should be discarded or sold. Currently, the District must store 7 buses and 28 vans outside of the enclosed bus garage facility. These District vehicles remain exposed to the elements. We feel that additional covered bus/van storage is needed to protect the District’s investment in these vehicles.

 Provide an Addition to House all District Vehicles at the Existing Site  Storage:  Study cost of new vs. rental over a long-term approach  Evaluate what is critical to store – purge all other  Establish future Planning Committees regularly to evaluate actual enrollment vs. projections, assess classroom demands vs. anticipated students, and make appropriate recommendations for future space needs in a timely manner. Additional Recommendations:

RECOMMENDATION OVERVIEW Restructure K-8 Beginning 2010/11 School Year EVES, RSES; FRES; MS Referendum Fall 2011 (Spring 2012?)* New 650 Student MS Land Acquisition / Field Development Other Issues TBD New MS Opens: 2014/15 School Year Evaluate Enrollment / Growth Re-establish Planning Group to Develop Future Plans * PENDING ENROLLMENT MATCHING PROJECTIONS

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE INVOLVED!

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS